Key to Umbria

Political Settlements in 340 BC

We here no more about Rome’s relations with the Sidicini and Aurunci until 337 BC, when (as described in my page Between First Two Samnite Wars II (337 - 328 BC)) they were both still independent of Rome (and at war with each other).  However, we do hear of the start of a political settlement with the Latins (who remained hostile at this point), the Volsci of Privernum, and the Campani: according to Livy, after their defeat at Trifanum:

  1. “Latium, [the Volsci and Capua were deprived of territory:

  2. the Latin territory;

  3. the territory of Privernum; and

  4. the ager Falernus; which had belonged to the populi Campani [people of [i.e. the people of Capua and its satellites, Atella, Casilinum and Calatia] as far as the river Volturnus;

  5. was parcelled out amongst the Roman plebs.  The [individual] assignments were: 

  6. 2 iugera in Latium;

  7. [2.75] iugera at Privernum ... ; and

  8. 3 iugera [in the ager Falernus].

  9. The Laurentes and the Campanian knights were exempted from ... [this punishment] because they had not revolted ... ”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 12-15).

See Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, at pp. 300-1, entry 3 and note 20) for this interpretation of Livy’s description of the size of the individual allotments at Privernum.

Latins (including the Laurentes of Lavinium)

In the passage above, Livy recorded that, in 340 BC:

  1. “Latium ... [was] deprived of territory, ... [which] was parcelled out amongst the Roman plebs.   The assignment was two iugera [per settler] ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 13-14).

As we shall see below, he subsequently recorded that:

  1. further confiscations took place in Latium after the end of the war in 338 BC (see below); and

  2. some of the viritane citizen settlers in Latium were assigned to one of two new voting tribes, the Maecia and the Scaptia, that were established in 332 BC (see below).

Laurentes (People of Lavinium)

Livy did not record the names of the Latin centres from which land was confiscated in 340 BC, but he did record that:

  1. The Laurentes, ... were exempted from the punishment inflicted on the [other] Latins because they had not revolted; it was ordered that the treaty with them should be renewed [annually], and it has [indeed] been renewed every year from that time, on the 10th day of the feriae Latinae”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 12-14).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 506-7) observed that the ‘Laurentes’ were the people of Lavinium, and:

  1. “[The fact that it is unnecessary to look elsewhere] for a separate ‘Laurentium’ is shown by inscriptions [such as CIL XIV 2070] that refer to the populus Laurens Lavinas as a single entity.”

Alison Cooley (referenced below, at pp. 173-4) noted that:

  1. “In the surviving epigraphic evidence [from the imperial period], ... a cohesive group known simply as the Laurentes existed only in the minds of emperors: by contrast, when the Laurentes actually set up inscriptions, they subdivided themselves into ‘Laurentes Lavinates’ and ‘Laurentes vico Augustano’.  Thus, [by this time], the idea of an overall regional identity incorporated further layers of refinement based upon the Augustan vicus and the town of Lavinium.”

She also described (at pp. 177-8) an interesting inscription (CIL X 797) from Pompeii, which dates to the reign of the Emperor Claudius (46 - 54 AD); it came from the base of a statue of Spurius Turranius Proculus Gellianus, whose cursus included the posts of:

  1. praif(ectus) pro pr(aetore) i(ure) d(icundo in urbe Lavinio (prefect with the powers of a praetor in charge of jurisdiction in the city of Lavinium”; and

  2. pater patratus populì Laurentis (‘father’ of the deputation of the Laurentes) in charge of [renewing] the treaty with the Roman people in accordance with the Sibylline books, which relates to the rites that are:

  3. concerned with the origins of the Roman people (the Quirites) and of the people of the Latin name; and

  4. observed among the Laurentes.”

Thus, it seems that this treaty had included terms that related to the observance at Lavinium of an ancient rite that was relevant to the foundation myths of both the Romans and the Latins, and that it was still being renewed annually in the early imperial period.

Livy had described the circumstances in which the Laurentes had avoided participating in the recent hostilities, apparently by accident:

  1. “The Latins ... were already defeated when the Laurentes, who were wasting time in deliberation, began to march to their assistance.  They received word of the [Roman victory at the Veseris] ... just as their foremost ensigns and a portion of their column had passed out through the city gates.  [Unsurprisingly], they turned around and returned into the city: it is said that their praetor, Milionius, remarked that they would have to pay a large price to the Romans for such a short march”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 3-4).

However, it seems that Milionius’ the worst of his fears were not realised: the Laurentes apparently retained all of their land and additionally their nominal independence.  It seems to me that the both the apparent reluctance of the Laurentes to clash with Roman and that of the Romans to punish them for coming close to doing so were rooted in their shared heritage: as Alison Cooley  (referenced below, at pp. 174-6) observed:

  1. “The legendary disembarkation of Aeneas onto the litus Laurentinum at a point called ‘Troy’ in his honour ... created ties between this region and Rome on a more ancient and profound basis than [for example. patterns of] property ownership by members of the Roman élite, and that these [ties] extended further inland too.”

Campani [People of Capua and its Satellites: Atella; Casilinum; and Calatia]

In the passage above, Livy recorded that, in 340 BC:

  1. “ Latium and Capua were deprived of territory ...: the ager Falernus, which had belonged to the Campani, was parcelled out amongst the Roman plebs.  The assignment was ... 3 iugera [per settler].  The Campanian knights were exempted from the punishment inflicted on the Latins, because they had not revolted ...  [They] received civitas Romana (Roman citizenship) and a bronze tablet was fastened up in the temple of Castor at Rome to commemorate the occasion.  The [other] Campani were commanded to pay them each a yearly stipend (there were 1,600 of them), amounting to 450 denarii”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 12-16).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 514) argued that these 1,600 knights almost certainly  received full citizenship, and that they and their descendants would thus have been able to vote when they were in Rome at the time of elections.

Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, at pp. 301-2, entry 5) suggested that the ager Falernus was confiscated in its entirety and (at note 20) that:

  1. “[Since] there is no record of the later distribution of land in the area, .. the whole ager Falernus seems to have been distributed [in 340 BC].”

However, it seems to me that, since:

  1. the Campanian knights escaped confiscation; and

  2. the confiscated land seems to have been confined to the ager Falernus;

then Livy must have meant that they retained their the land that they retained their lands in the ager Falernus.   In other words, after 340 BC, the ager Falernus was entirely in the hands of Roman citizens, comprising Campanian knights and viritane settlers from Rome.  As we shall see, these citizens were registered or re-registered in a new tribe, the Falerna, in 318 BC.


In the passage above, Livy recorded that, in 340 BC:

  1. “... territory ... [that had been confiscated from] Privernum ... was parcelled out amongst the Roman plebs.   The assignment was [2.75 iugera per settler] ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 15).

As noted above, Livy had recorded that, in the previous year, the consul Caius Plautius Venox had:

  1. “... captured Privernum.  After installing a strong garrison in it, he restored it to its inhabitants, but deprived them of two thirds of their territory”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 1: 3).

Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, at pp. 300-1, entry 3) noted that some of this land was used for the assignations to the plebs that Livy described here (at 8:11: 14), which she dated this to 338 BC.  However, Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 394 and note 1) suggested that:

  1. “... perhaps [Livy’s] notice of the confiscation of two thirds of [Privernate territory in 341 BC] should be transferred to 329 BC, ... [albeit that] the matter cannot be decided beyond all doubt.”

I return to this point below.

Political Settlements after 338 BC


According to Livy, after the successful conclusion of the campaign of 338 BC, Furius addressed the Senate as follows:

  1. “Conscript Fathers, what was needful to be done in Latium in the way of war and arms has now ... been done.  The armies of our enemies have been cut to pieces at Pedum and on the [river] Astura; all the Latin towns, together with Antium in the land of the Volsci, have either been carried by storm or have made submission, and are in the keeping of your garrisons.  It remains to consider ...  how we may hold them quietly in a lasting peace.  ... Whatever you decide, speed is of the essence ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 13: 11-18).

Livy then described the Senate’s decisions in the following chapter.  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 538) described the resulting settlement as:

  1. “... one of the most significant moments in Roman history.  It provided Rome with the secure system of incorporated states and subject allies that was to [serve as] the rock upon which [its] great expansion in Italy ... was based.”

Communities Incorporated with Voting Rights

Red asterisks (Nomentum, Pedum, Tusculum, Lanuvium and ?Veltrae)

                                                    =  centres incorporated as non-colonial civitates optimo iure after the Latin War

Red dot s (Ostia and Antium) = citizen colonies

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 542-3) observed that one of the innovations of the political settlement after the Latin War:

  1. “... was the incorporation of defeated states into the Roman state.  Already in 381 BC, Tusculum had been annexed in this way [see earlier page], but now, this pioneering experiment was developed on [a much] larger scale.  The annexed states fell into two classes:

  2. those incorporated optimo iure with the right of suffrage; and

  3. those incorporated sine suffragio [i.e., without voting rights].”

He pointed out that, in this chapter:

  1. “... Livy distinguishes carefully between civitas [indicating civitas optimo iure] and  civitas sine suffragio”.

The present section deals with the first of these categories.

Previous Examples of Incorporation Optimo Iure

We have already come across the incorporation into the Roman state otimo iure (with voting rights) of neighbouring peoples

  1. In 389 BC:

  2. “... those Veientians, Capenates, and Faliscans that had [remained loyal to Rome during the recoent war with Rome] received citizenship and an allotment of land”, (‘History of Rome’, 6: 4: 4).

  3. Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1997, at pp. 345) argued that, although Livy:

  4. “... regarded this as a reward for those who had deserted to Rome, ... his notice [more probably indicated] the wholesale incorporation [into the Roman state] of the inhabitants of the conquered area”.

  5. In 387 BC:

  6. “Four tribes were added from the new citizens: the Stellatina; the Tromentina; the Sabatina; and the Arnensis; which took the number of [Roman voting] tribes to 25”, (‘History of Rome’, 6: 5: 8).

  7. This was the first occasion since 495 BC on which new tribes had been created.  Since these four tribes were created for ‘new citizens’, we might reasonably assume that the incorporated Veientians, Capenates, and Faliscans received voting rights.

  8. In 381 BC, the people of Tusculum had joined an anti-Roman uprising.  Following their complete submission, they::

  9. “... obtained peace ... and, not long after, civitatem etiam impetrauerunt (they obtained citizenship)”, (History of Rome’, 6: 26: 8).

  10. Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1997, at p. 358) observed that:

  11. “It seems reasonable to assume that the incorporation was similar to the later incorporation of [other] Latin states optimo iure (with voting rights) in 338 BC.”

  12. According to Livy, although citizens of Tusculum had joined the Latin revolt of 338 BC, after their surrender, they: 

  13. “... were allowed to retain their citizenship, and the charge of renewing the war was laid on a few ringleaders, without endangering [the rest of the] community”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 4).

Incorporation of Lanuvium, Aricia, Nomentum and Pedum

Livy identified four Latin communities that were incorporated after their submissions of 338 BC:

  1. “The people of Lanuvium were given civitas, and their cults were restored to them, with the stipulation that the temple and grove of Juno Sospita should be held in common by the citizens of Lanuvium and the Roman people.  The people of Aricia, Nomentum and Pedum were received civitas on the same terms as those of Lanuvium”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 2-3).

Since Livy did not explicitly say that they were incorporated sine suffragio, we might reasonable assume that their incorporation was optimo iure.


The case of Velitrae is more complicated: although it had been a prisca Latina colonia (see below), it had fallen to the Volsci in the early 5th century BC.  According to Livy:

  1. “The people of Velitrae, who were veteres cives Romanos (Roman citizens of old), were severely punished because they had so often revolted: not only were their walls torn down, but their senators were deported and ordered to dwell across the Tiber ... [Viritane] colonists were settled on the farm- lands [confiscated from] the senators and, after their enrolment, Velitrae regained its former population density”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 5-7).

Since this passage comes immediately after those relating to the incorporation optimo iure of the peoples of Lanuvium, Aricia, Nomentum and Pedum and immediately before those relating to the incorporation optimo iure of the people of Antium (see below), we might at first glance assume that the people of Velitrae were also incorporated.  However, Livy does not actually say that Velitrae was incorporated at all.  On the other hand, he says that they were veteres cives Romanos and he does not say that this status had been lost.

The evidence of the so-called Tabula Veliterna, a four-line bronze inscription dating to the 3rd century BC, which:

  1. was found at Velitrae and which was presumably inscribed there;

  2. is inscribed in a language that is not Latin (albeit that it uses the Latin alphabet); and

  3. mentions a pair of ‘meddices’ (magistrates found among Sabellian populations);

suggests that Velitrae remained essentially a Volscian community for many decades after its submission to Rome.  This has prompted many scholars to suggest that Velitrae must have been incorporated sine suffragio in 338 BC.  For example, Heikki Solin (referenced below, at p. 77) asserted that:

  1. “Velitrae remained for a long time (perhaps up to the Social War) civitas sine suffragio: otherwise:

  2. why would [it] still produce official documents in the Volscian language and employ old forms of civic administration towards the middle of the 3rd century BC; and

  3. why would [the full citizens of Velitrae] not have initiated political Romanisation if they had been present in the territory for almost a century ?” (my translation).

Daniel Gargola (referenced below, at p.91) observed that Velitrae (some 30 km from Rome) may have been the community closest to Rome to have been incorporated without voting rights.

In the other camp, Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 506-7) argued that, although Livy:

  1. “... does not specifically state that citizenship was forced upon the Veliterni, ... that seems be implied by both ‘veteres cives Romanos’ and the general context of [8: 14: 2-7].”

He argued (at  p. 563) that, although the Tabula Veliterna:

  1. “ ... is certainly not in Latin, and it may be  written in a Volscian or an Oscan dialect, it is improbable  that Latin was not spoken at all in Velitrae, which was very close to Cora and Lanuvium”

In other words, in Oakley’s view:

  1. linguistic considerations would not have obstructed the full incorporation of Velitrae; and

  2. the evidence of Livy’s testimony arguably points in the direction of full incorporation, albeit that he was not explicit on this point. 

I return to the likely status of Velitrae in the conclusions section below..

Antium and the Coloniae Maritimae

Antium, like Velitrae, had been a prisca Latina colonia (see below) before falling to the Volsci in the 5th century BC.  However, according to Livy, its settlement with Rome in 338 BC differed fundamentally with that of Velitrae:

  1. “... a colony was dispatched to Antium, with an understanding that the Antiates were permitted, if they wished, to enrol as colonists.  However, their warships were confiscated and their people were forbidden the sea.  They were granted civitas (citizenship)”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 7-9).

Since Livy recorded that the Antiates received civitas (as opposed to civitas sine suffragio) we might reasonably assume that they were incorporated optimo iure after their final defeat.  However, unlike any of the other communities discussed so far, Antium also received a Roman colony, in which the newly-enfranchised Antiates were permitted but not compelled to enrol .  Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 566) argued that those who chose not to enrol were initially regulated from the new colony.

Livy subsequently identified Antium as one of the seven coloniae maritimae that resisted an emergency levy in 207 BC, during the Hannibalic War:

  1. “[The following coloniae maritimae] came before the Senate [in order to claim military exemption]: Ostia, Alsium, Antium, Anxur [Tarracina], Minturnae, Sinuessa and ... Sena [Gallica, on the Adriatic].  Although each of them read the evidence of its exemption, it was accepted only for Antium and Ostia for the period in which the enemy remained in Italy.  Furthermore, in the case of these two colonies, the younger men were made to swear that they would not pass the night outside the walls of their colony for more than 30 days, so long as the enemy was in Italy”, (‘History of Rome’, 27: 38: 4).

Livy produced a similar list in 191 BC (‘History of Rome’, 36: 3: 3-5), when none of the appellants were successful in avoiding the levy.  This second list:

  1. also included Antium and Ostia; and

  2. allows us to add another three to our list of known coloniae maritimae: Castrum Novum, Pyrgi, and Fregenae.

According to Graham Mason (referenced below, at p. 75):

  1. “Between the end of the Latin War (338 BC) and the end of the First Punic War (241 BC), Rome founded her first ten coloniae civium Romanorum: Ostia, Antium, Tarracina, Minturnae, Sinuessa, Sena Gallica, Castrum Novum, Pyrgi, Alsium, and Fregenae, in approximate order of foundation.  ... [These were] the first Roman colonies to consist of full Roman citizens instead of burghers with Latin rights ...”

However, Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 559) observed that the date of the foundation of the colonia maritima at Ostia is, in fact, unknown:

  1. “If Ostia ... was the first such foundation, then the practice [of founding citizen colonies on coastal sites] may have originated before 338 BC; [however], Antium is the first [such] colony whose date of foundation is certainly known, and it was followed ... by Anxur [Tarracina] (in 329 BC) ...”

None of the others in Livy’s lists were founded before the start of the following century. 

William Harris (referenced below) pointed out that:

  1. “It is impossible to gain a clear idea of what was in Roman minds when Rome first established secure access to the sea by:

  2. fortifying Ostia somewhat before 350 BC;  and

  3. by setting up a citizen colony at Antium in 338,BC [and] ... at Tarracina in 329 BC [see below]. 

  4. [However], these coastal sites could certainly not have been defended effectively without [at least] some warships.”

We might note in this context that, according to Livy (above):

  1. “Some of the ... ships [captured at Antium in 338 BC] were laid up in the Roman dockyards.  Others were burnt, and it was decided that their rostraque (prows) should be used to embellish a dais erected in the Forum.  This sacred place [thus] became known as the Rostra”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 11-12).

In other words:

  1. the fortification of Ostia,

  2. the confiscation of most of the Antiate fleet; and

  3. the foundation of the maritime colonies of the 4th century BC;

might have been part of a Roman plan to create a significant naval force.  However, if this was the case, then the plan was apparently initially unsuccessful: as Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p.394) observed:

  1. “... our (no doubt incomplete) sources record only two occasions during the 50 years before the First Punic War [264-241 BC] in which the Romans were involved in naval activity (the unsuccessful raid on Pompeii and Nuceria Alfaterna in 310/9 BC and the defeat at the hands of  Tarentum in 282 BC ...”


Although Ostia apparently featured in neither the Latin War nor settlement of 338 BC, it is convenient to discuss its early development here.  Livy recorded that King Ancus Marcius had founded Ostia urbs (the city of Ostia) in the late 7th century BC (History of Rome’, 1: 33: 9).  Roman tradition transformed  Livy’s ancient urbs into Rome’s first colonia.  Thus

  1. An inscription (CIL XIV 4338) from the imperial period, fragments of which were found at Ostia Antica and which probably came from the base of a statue of Ancus Marcius, recorded that:

  2.   A[nco]/Mar[cio],/ reg[i Rom(ano)]/ quart[o a R]omul[o],

  3. qui ab ur[be c]ondit[a] / [pri]mum colon[iam]/ [c(ivium) Rom(anorum)] dedux[it]

  4. Ancus Marcius, the fourth of the kings after Romulus from the founding of the city [Rome]

  5. founded this first colony of the Roman people

  6. The tradition continued into the 5th century AD: as Douglas Boin (referenced below, at p. 20) observed, the calendar compiled by Polemius Silvius at that time also recorded that Ostia had been Rome’s first colony. 

However, Timothy Cornell (referenced below, 1995, at p. 385) pointed out that the earliest archeological evidence on the site relates to:

  1. “... a small Roman settlement founded in the early 4th century BC, [which] was no more than a fort to guard the estuary [of the Tiber] ...”

This presumably governed Harris’ assertion (above) that Ostia was first fortified ‘somewhat before 350 BC’.  This fortification might have coincided with the foundation of the colony, albeit that Ostia was not recorded as a colony in our surviving literary sources until Livy’s record of 207 BC (see above).

Incorporation Optimo Iure: Conclusions

Livy did not identify any of the Latin communities that:

  1. participated in the battles of 340 BC; and/or

  2. suffered land confiscation in the political settlement that followed them.

However, as we have seen, he did record that:

  1. The Laurentes [the people of Lavinum], ... were exempted from the punishment inflicted on the [other] Latins because they had not revolted; it was ordered that the treaty with them should be renewed [annually], and it has [indeed] been renewed every year from that time, on the 10th day of the feriae Latinae”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 12-14).

Thus, it seems that the Laurentes also escaped incorporation into the Roman state.

Livy also identified a number of the communities that participated in the hostilities of 339 BC:

  1. the hostilities at Pedum involved the people of Pedum itself and those of Tibur and Praeneste; and

  2. the hostilities at Antium involved the people of Antium itself and those of Lanuvium, Aricia and Velitrae.

Of these seven communities, only Tibur and Praeneste retained their independence: as discussed below, this was probably because the incorporation of these two relatively powerful centres would have created more problems than it would have solved.  More interestingly:

  1. all of Pedum, Antium, Lanuvium, Aricia and Velitrae were incorporated into the Latin state; and

  2. Livy identified only one other Latin community that shared this fate: the people of  Nomentum (who might also have played a part at Pedum, although there is no explicit evidence for this).

With the possible exception of Velitrae, all of these communities were incorporated optimo iure.  Furthermore, all four communities that were (or were probably) incorporated in this way in the 380s BC discussed above:

  1. the Etruscans of Veii;

  2. the Capenates, and the Faliscans, whose cultures were allied to that of the Etruscans; and

  3. and the Latins of Tusculum;

also met this fate after having been defeated by Rome.

We might also note that:

  1. All of the centres that  were or were probably/ possibly incorporated optimo iure in the period 389-329 BC were relatively close to Rome:

  2. Veii, Tusculum, Pedum and Aricia were within 25 km;

  3. Lanuvium and the ager Capenas were within 35 km;

  4. Velitrae, Antium and the ager Faliscus, respectively, about 40, about 50 and about 60 km from the city.

  5. On the other hand, as we shall see, all of the centres that were incorporated sine suffragio in the period 338-329 BC, with the possible exception of Velitrae,  were 90 km or more from the city. 

In other words, although Livy often portrays incorporation as a privilege, it was almost certainly perceived by the recipients as unavoidable retribution.  The decision as to whether the recipients received the vote was probably a matter of practicality:

  1. those within relatively easy reach of Rome (be they: Latins; Etruscans; Capenates; Faliscans; or Volscians) received the vote; while

  2. those that were further away did not.

On this basis, we might reasonably conclude (in my view) that Velitrae was indeed incorporated optimo iure.

Census of 332 BC

According to Livy:

  1. “... the census was taken [in 332 BC] and new citizens were assessed.  Because of these [new citizens], the Maecia and Scaptia tribes were added.  The censors who added them were Quintus Publilius Philo and Quintus Spurius Postumius Albinus”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 11-12).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 592) pointed out that:

  1. “This was the first census since the settlement of 338 BC:

  2. It put into effect the measures of that year and allowed the new [full citizens] to vote in their tribes ...; and

  3. it re-registered Romans who had gone to settle on [land in Latium that had been confiscated in 340 and 338 BC].

  4. Some of the new registrations could be could be incorporated by extensions [of the territories] of existing tribes but, as this was not always [practical], two new tribes had to be created.”

Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, 1960, at p. 41) noted that there is, in fact, a dearth of epigraphic evidence for the tribes assigned to the enfranchised peoples of Latium.  However, she  noted (at p. 43) that at least two of the six  peoples under discussion here (both of which were about 25 km from Rome) can be securely assigned to existing tribes:

  1. Tusculum was assigned to the Papiria; and

  2. Aricia was assigned to the Horatia. 

She further suggested (at pp. 43-4) that the people of Nomentum and Pedum (both of which were also about 25 km from Rome) might also been assigned to old tribes (the Cornelia and the Menenia respectively), although Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 543, note2) argued that the tribes of these two centres are, in fact, unknown.

Ostia, Antium and the Voturia Tribe

Ostia was securely assigned to the ancient Voturia tribe.  Heikki Solin (referenced below, at p. 75) discussed the epigraphic evidence for the tribe of Antium.  He concluded that it indicated two possible candidates: the Quirina and/or the Voturia:

  1. the evidence for the Quirina is extensive and secure, but this tribe was created only in 241 BC; while

  2. the evidence for the Voturia rests on only two inscriptions, neither of which (as we shall see) can be securely related to a native of Antium.

Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at p. 320) suggested that the Voturia:

  1. “.... was extended down the coast [from Ostia] to Antium [in 332 BC.  However], the much more abundant testimony for the Quirina [at Antium] needs to be explained.  I suggest that it was a secondary tribe... , given to veterans settled in a colony there by [the Emperor Nero (54 - 68 AD)] soon after his succession.”

The evidence for Nero’s colony rests with Suetonius, who recorded that Nero was born in Antium (‘Life of Nero’, 6:1), and added that:

  1. “He established a colony at Antium, enrolling the veterans of the praetorian guard and joining with them the wealthiest of the chief centurions, whom he compelled to change their residence; and he also made a harbour there at great expense”, (‘Life of Nero’, 9:1).

In other words, it is possible that the Voturia was extended southwards in 332 BC for:

  1. the registration of the newly-enfranchised Antiates;

  2. the re-registration of the newly-enrolled colonists from Rome. 

On this model, Nero (for whatever reason) would have arranged for the veterans that he settled there in ca. 54 AD to be registered in the Quirina. 

It has to be said that the epigraphic evidence for the presence of the Voturia at Antium before ca. 54 AD consists of only a single inscription (CIL VI 0903), which records an aedile, Lucius Scrìbonius Celer, of the Voturia tribe and which can be securely dated to 36 AD.  Furthermore, as  Heikki Solin (referenced below, at p. 76) pointed out, Scribonius might have come from Ostia, where his family name was well-attested.  Nevertheless, the southwards extension of the Voturia would have been an obvious way of accommodating the new colonists and the newly-enfranchised Antiates in 332 BC.  Solin concluded (at p/ 7)  that:

  1. “The tribal history of Antium remains an open question, although hypothesis of ... Lily Ross Taylor is certainly possible, even plausible” (my translation).  

New Citizens Assigned to the Maecia and the Scaptia

We might reasonably assume that citizens at Lanuvium and Velitrae would have been assigned to one of the new tribes:

  1. Livy (above) recorded that these new tribes were needed for the new citizens; and

  2. since Lanuvium and Velitrae (both about 35 km from Rome) were the two newly-incorporated centres that were furthest from Rome, they are likely to have been the the least easily absorbed into existing voting districts. 

Indeed, the evidence that Lanuvium was assigned to the Maecia is compelling:

  1. According to Festus (‘Epitome’, 121 Lindsay):

  2. Maecia tribus a quodam castro sic appellata”,

  3. “The Maecia tribe was named for a castrum (military camp)” (my translation)

  4. As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1997, at p. 407) pointed out:

  5. “... we know [from Livy, ‘History of Rome’, 6: 2: 8] that this [castrum] was not far from Lanuvium ... [and thus that] Lanuvium was almost certainly in the Maecia tribe ...”

  6. (See also, Lily Ross Taylor, referenced below: at p. and note 24; and at p. 273, where she listed a number of senatorial families from Lanuvium that were assigned to the Maecia.)

It is therefore tempting to assume (with Lily Ross Taylor, referenced below, at p. 55) that the Scaptia was created for the Roman citizens at Velitrae:

  1. Taylor herself assumed that the people of Velitrae were incorporated without voting rights in 338 BC, and that the Scaptia was created for citizens from Rome who settled on land that had been confiscated from the exiled Veliternian senators.

  2. However, as discussed above, it is possible that the tribe was created for both existing (but re-registered) and new Roman citizens at Veliitrae.

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to support either of these hypotheses since we know neither:

  1. the precise location of the Scaptia voting district; nor

  2. the tribe to which the citizens at Velitrae were assigned.

Velitrae and the Scaptia Tribe

As far as the location of the Scaptia voting district is concerned, we have the testimony of Festus (‘Epitome’, 464 Lindsay):

S<captia tribus a no> mine urbis Scaptiae a<ppellata, quam Latini > incolebant

“The Scaptia tribe is named  for the Latin city of that name” (my translation)

Unfortunately, according to Pliny the Elder (who was writing in the 1st century AD), Scaptia was among  the 53:

  1. “... famous towns of Latium ... [that had] passed away without leaving any traces of their existence”, (‘Natural History’, 3:9).

There are two main strands of scholarly thought as to its original location: 

  1. Julius Beloch (referenced below, at p. 26) placed it between Ardea and Aricia, because (according to Livy, ‘History of Rome’, 3: 71-72), when these two centres both claimed a particular piece of land in 466 BC, an old man called Scaptius testified that, as a young soldier, he had fought with the army that had won the land in question for Rome. 

  2. As noted above, Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at pp. 54-5) suggested that the Scaptia had more probably been created for the Romans who settled on confiscated land at Velitrae in 338 BC.  She based this on evidence from Suetonius’ biography of Caius Octavius (better known as the Emperor Augustus), to the effect that:

  3. “... the family of the Octavii  was of the first distinction in Velitrae” (‘Life of Augustus’, 1); and

  4. “[Augustus was enrolled in both] the Fabian and Scaptian tribes”, (Life of Augustus’, 40: 2).

  5. She reasoned that, since the Fabia was the tribe of Augustus’ father by adoption (Julius Caesar), the Scaptia must have been the tribe of his natural father (also called Caius Octavius) and this branch of the gens Octavii, and thus of the people of Velitrae.

Unfortunately, it is not certain that Velitrae had been assigned to the Scaptia in 338 BC.  The surviving epigraphic evidence for the tribe of Velitrae is unhelpful in this respect: Heikki Solin (referenced below, at p. 77) cited four surviving inscriptions, each of which apparently related to a native of the town, and each of which placed the native in question in a different tribe: the Clustumina; the Pollia; the Quirina; or the Stellatina.  He observed that this disparate evidence:

  1. “... does not rule out the possibility that ... , when [the people of Velitrae finally received] full citizenship, its inhabitants were registered in [the Scaptia].  However, this cannot be demonstrated from the sources at our disposal: [in the absence of any other evidence], the fact that Augustus' father belonged to the Scaptia is not enough to prove that this was the tribe of the  people of Velitrae, because his family was not necessarily of remote Veliternian origin” (my translation).

Given these uncertainties, there are at least two schools of thought, as represented by the opinions of Heikki Solin and Stephen Oakley:

  1. Heikki Solin (referenced below, at p. 77), who believed that the people of Velitrae had been incorporated in 338 BC without voting rights, concluded that:

  2. “I would look for the territory of the Scaptia tribe (according to Livy and in agreement with Beloch) between Ardea and Aricia” (my translation).

  3. Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 592), who believed that the people of Velitrae had been incorporated with voting rights, was of the opinion that:

  4. “On current evidence, the matter [of their tribal assignation at this point] must remain undecided.”

However, he observed (at p. 543) that, whether the Scaptia was between Ardea and Aricia or around Velitrae:

  1. “... the creation, in 332 BC of ... the Maecia and the Scaptia [would have] linked the outlying Pomptina and Poblilia [voting districts] with the rest of Roman territory.”

Communities Allied with Rome

Red asterisks =  centres incorporated as civitates optimo iure  (see above)

Red squares (Ostia, Antium) =  Maritime citizen colonies (see above )

Black circles ( Lavinum, Tibur and Praenese) =  allied non-colonial centres

Black squares (Ardea, Circeii, Norba, Setia, Signia) =  Latin colonies

Livy recorded that:

  1. “The rest of the Latin peoples [by which, he presumably meant all those who were not incorporated into the Roman state] were deprived of the rights of: mutual trade ; intermarriage; and holding common councils”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 10).

The first two of these prohibitions ended bilateral relations between the unincorporated Latin centres.  The third was perhaps more fundamental: as Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 540) observed:

  1. “... [they] were forbidden to use their old [pan-Latin] assemblies, and were joined to Rome by direct and individual treaties.  Never again would there be a Latin League able to foster resentment against Rome.”

Oakley also noted (at p. 541) that:

  1. “[Although] these [Latin allies] remained nominally independent ... , they were now linked to Rome so closely by treaty that all possibility of an independent foreign policy was lost. ... Like other allies, [they] were expected to provide troops to fight alongside the Romans ... [However, their] status was enhanced by privileges not shared by other allies: they traditionally shared [the so-called Latin rights in their dealings with Rome and Roman citizens]:

  2. commercium [the right of land ownership];

  3. conubium [the right to make a lawful marriage];  and

  4. the ius migrationis [the right to acquire citizenship simply by taking up permanent residence] ...”

Livy subsequently recorded this privileged group as socii nominis Latini (the allies of the Latin name).

  1. As noted above, he had used this expression for the Latins who had joined the revolts that had precipitated the Latin War in 340 BC.  At this time, it would have referred collectively to those who were then party to the foedus Cassianum, which had been renewed in  358 BC. 

  2. Now that this treaty was terminated, the phrase referred collectively to the allies with Latin rights, each of which would have had a bi-lateral treaty with Rome.  As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 541) pointed out, the first of these references in the post-war context related to the army that the the Latin allies sent to assist the Romans at the Battle of Sentinum (295 BC):

  3. “The force with which the consuls took to the field ... [included] an army  of the allies of the Latin name that was even larger army than the Roman army”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 26: 14).

  4. As we shall see below, by this time, these Latin allies would have included a number of colonies with Latin rights (i.e. Latin colonies) that had been founded outside Latium.

Lavinium, Tibur and Praeneste

As noted above, the people of Lavinium, who shad uffered no land confiscation in 340 BC because they had not participated in the revolt, had also agreed a treaty with Rome at that time. 

In his account of the settlement of 338 BC, Livy mentioned by name only two other unincorporated Latin communities:

  1. “The Tiburtes and Praenestini, [both of whom had participated in the hostilities at Pedum in 338 BC], were deprived of territory, not only because of [this rebellion] ... , but also because they had once ...  united in arms with the Gauls ... [against Rome]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 9-10).  

Edward Salmon (referenced below, at p. 50) suggested that the Romans had allowed these centres to retain their nominal independence because they were both:

  1. “...ancient and populous Latin towns to whom the very idea of annexation would have been anathema, [so that forced incorporation] would undoubtedly have kept them in a state of smouldering rebelliousness: although they had been mulcted of some of their territory ... , they were still ...[relatively] powerful ... , [and] their recalcitrance could [not have been] simply disregarded.  Wisely, Rome decided to make them allies ...”

Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, 1960, at p. 43) pointed out that, when Tibur and Praeneste were finally enfranchised (probably after the Social War), they were each assigned to one of the original rural tribes:

  1. Tibur was assigned to the Camilia; and

  2. Praeneste was assigned to the Menenia. 

She noted that the original territories of:

“... these tribes adjoined the land confiscated from the two people, and that, ... [after the Social War, each of them] regained its old territory and the took tribe in which that territory had been placed [in 338 BC].”

Daniel Gargola (referenced below, 2017, at p. 95, in map 4) tentatively placed:

  1. the Camilia between Tibur and Rome; and

  2. the Menenia between Tibur and Praeneste. 

Whether or not this was the case, it is clear that the Romans used the excuse of recent treachery to deprive these large communities of territory that was essential to their own defence, which they presumably repopulated it with Roman citizens.

Former Priscae Latinae Coloniae

Priscae Latinae Coloniae  in Latium

Those underlined (Ardea, Circeii, Setia, Signia; and Norba) were recorded as Latin colonies in 209 BC

Adapted from Monica Chiabà (referenced below), who adapted

R. J. A. Talbert (ed.), “Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World”, (2000) Princeton, Maps 42 and 44

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1997, at pp. 341-2)  listed the following 13 centres in Latium that are known from surviving sources to have been founded or re-founded in the period from the start of the Republic to the end of the Latin War: Antium; Ardea; Circeii; Cora; Fidenae; Labicum; Norba; Pometia; Satricum; Setia; Signia; Velitrae; and Vitellia.  (See also Monica Chiabà, referenced below).  Oakley argued (at p. 343) that, although it is often assumed that all of these colonies had been founded by the Latin League, in fact:

  1. “... most of [them] were founded by a joint decision of Rome and the Latin League ...”

These are known collectively (together with Nepete and Sutrium, north of Latium. as the priscae  Latinae coloniae. Livy identified only two of them by name (Antium and Velitrae, both of which had subsequently been overrun by the Volsci) in his account of the settlement of 338 BC.

Another five priscae Latinae coloniae (Ardea; Circeii; Norba; Setia; and Signia, all underlined on the map above) were among the 30 coloniae populi Romani (colonies of the people of Rome) that, according to Livy, existed in 209 BC:

  1. There were at that time 30 coloniae populi Romani ... 12 [of which]  informed the consuls that they had no means of furnishing soldiers and money [for the on-going Hannibalic War].  These [included] Ardea ... Circeii, [and] Setia ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 27: 9: 7); and

  2. “... the 18 colonies ... [that confirmed] that they [still] had soldiers in readiness according to their obligations ...  [included] Signia and Norba ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 27: 10: 3-7).


  1. these five centres presumably still had Latin rights;

  2. Livy did not differentiate them in any way from the other 25 coloniae populi Romani; and

  3. Livy used the term coloniae civium Romanorum for colonies of Roman citizens;

we might reasonably assume that all 30 coloniae populi Romani of 209 BC had Latin rights, and that Ardea; Circeii; Norba; Setia; and Signia had retained this status after 338 BC (albeit with new bilateral relations with Rome). 

We thus need to account for the six priscae Latinae coloniae that did not appear among the 30 Latin colonies of 209 BC:

  1. Pliny the Elder (who was writing in the 1st century AD), included four of them (Fidenae; Pometia; Satricum; and Vitellia) among the 53:

  2. “... famous towns of Latium ... [that had] passed away without leaving any traces of their existence”, (‘Natural History’, 3:9);

  3. Labicum seems to have lost its colonial status and subsequently declined in importance: in 54 BC, Cicero included it with Tusculum, Gabii and Bovillae, as examples of:

  4. “... municipia in which you can now hardly find a single citizen to bear a part in the Feriae Latinae [annual Latin festival]” (‘Pro Plancia’ 23);  and

  5. Cora: according to Monica Chiabà, referenced below, p. 8 and note 41):

  6. “The situation in relation to the status of Cora is complex: what is certain is that it subsequently lost its status as a colony.  After 338 BC, it was subjected to a bilateral treaty” (my translation).

Campani and the Volsci (338 - 328 BC)


As discussed in my page Between First Two Samnite Wars I (341 - 338 BC), Livy (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 10) concluded his account of the political settlement after the Latin War of 340-338 BC with a record of the settlements that the Romans made in relation to:

  1. the defeated Campani; and

  2. the Volscian peoples of Fundi and Formiae. 

However, Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 539-40) observed that, although Livy’s chapter (8:14):

  1. “... contains a remarkable array of reliable factual information relating to the constitutional settlements, ... it is perhaps unlikely that the Romans would have been able to effect so radical a series of of reforms in the space of one year [i.e., in 338 BC}.”

He cited evidence that suggests that this was particularly the case for the settlements with the Campani and with Fundi and Formiae, which are the subject of the section below.

Incorporation of the Cities of Campania

As we have seen, after the Campani who had joined the Latin revolt surrendered in 340 BC:

  1. they were deprived of the ager Falernus, which was distributed in small allotments among the Roman plebs (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 12-14); although

  2. the 1600 Campanian knights who had sided with Rome were exempted from this land confiscation and also received full Roman citizenship (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 16).

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 554) pointed out:

  1. “... neither [Capua] nor any other Campanian cities are recorded as taking any further part in the Latin War.”

According to Livy, as part of the settlement of 338 BC:

  1. “... as a compliment to Campanian knights (who had not consented to join the Latin revolt), the Campani were granted civitas sine suffragio”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 101).

Michael Fronda (referenced below, at p. 129) suggested that ‘the Campani’ included Capua and its satellites: Atella; Casilinum; and Calatia, all of which were in northern Campania.  Livy also recorded the incorporation sine suffragio of three other cities of Campania:

  1. In 338 BC:

  2. “It was [also] voted to give the people of Cumae and Suessula the same rights and the same terms as the people of Capua”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 10-11); and

  3. at the time of the census of 332 BC:

  4. .. a law introduced by the praetor, Lucius Papirius, conferred civitas sine suffragio on the people of Acerrae”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 17: 12).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998) addressed the reason for the incorporation of Cumae, Suessula and Acerrae alongside that of Capua:

  1. At p. 569, he argued that, although there is no record that either Cumae or  Suessula was allied with Capua against Rome in 340 BC, this had probably been the case. 

  2. At p. 550, he argued that:

  3. “[Although] Rome is not known to have been at war with [Acerrae] ,  ... it is quite conceivable that there was fighting [between them], either in 340-338 BC or subsequently, and that this information has been passed over by our sources.”

In other words, these cases do not necessarily disprove his view, articulated at p. 568 (see also below) that, although Livy often portrayed incorporation as a reward (as here, when he suggested that the incorporation of the Campani was a reward for the loyalty of the Campanian knights), it is more likely that it was generally an act of Roman retribution.

Date of these Incorporations

As noted above, Livy placed the incorporation of Capua and its satellites (Atella, Casilinum and Calatia), Cumae and Suessula in 338 BC and that of Acerrae in 332 BC.  However, Velleius Patroculus recorded a different sequence of events:

  1. “... in the consulship of Spurius Postumius Albinus and Titus Veturius Calvinus [334/3 BC], the citizenship without the right of voting was given to the Campani and to a portion of the Samnites: in the same year, a colony was  established at Cales” (‘Roman History’, 1: 14: 3).

As noted above, Livy also dated the foundation of the colony of Cales (immediately to the east of the ager Falernus) to 344 BC.  Both authors also agree on the date of the subsequent incorporation of the Campanian centre of Acerrae: according to Velleius Patroculus:

  1. “... the citizenship was granted to the inhabitants of Acerrae by the censors [of 332 BC], Spurius Postumius Albinus and Quintus Publilius Philo” (‘Roman History’, 1: 14: 4).

Thus, as Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at pp. 554-5) pointed out, the key discrepancy between these sources relates to the date of the incorporation of Capua:

  1. “If one follows Livy, then Rome waited just two years (that is, until the Latins had been finally subjugated).  [However], his testimony is probably to be rejected in favour of 334/3 BC, the date recorded by [Velleius Paterculus ] ...”

Oakley gave his reason for preferring Velleius’ date at pp. 539-40:

  1. “Livy presents [the settlement that he described in Chapter 8:14] as the record of decrees resulting from a meeting of the Senate after the end of the Latin War.  [However], although it contains a remarkable array of reliable factual information relating to the constitutional settlement, [it is unlikely that] it reflects a series of decrees [that were all] passed in 338 BC. ... Now, the [alternative] information of Velleius Patroculus ... is internally inconsistent [see below] ... For this reason, some will wish to dismiss [it].  However, it is much more likely that Livy or one of his sources combined into one synoptic passage measures originally passed over a period of time than that Velleius has redistributed a series of measures [that were actually] passed in 338 BC over the following years.  [Also against Livy is the fact that] it is perhaps unlikely that the Romans would have been able to effect so radical a series of reforms in the space of one year.”

Oakley conceded (at pp. 554-5) that:

  1. “[It is unclear] why the final settlement took six years ... , but presumably the terms of incorporation were reached only after some negotiation, albeit with Rome very much in the dominant position.”

It seems to me that the Romans might also have delayed its final settlement with the northern Campani until it had consolidated its hold on them (and on the confiscated ager Falernus) by expelling the Ausones from nearby Cales and founding a colony there.

Conclusions: Incorporation of of the Cities of Campania

In the light of Oakley’s hypotheses, we might reasonably assume that:

  1. In 340 BC, Capua and its satellites (Atella, Casilinum and Calatia) joined the Latin revolt, probably supported by Cumae and Suessula and possibly also by Acerrae.

  2. After the Campanian allies surrendered later that year, Rome confiscated the ager Falernus, which had formally belonged to the (northern) Campani.  However, some 1,600 Campanian knight who had remained loyal to Rome were rewarded: they received citizenship (probably optimo iure) and were exempted from the confiscation of any land that they owned in the ager Falernus.

  3. In 334/3 BC, at about the time of the foundation of Cales (on the eastern edge of the ager Falernus), the (northern) Campani were incorporated sine suffragio. 

  4. the incorporation sine suffragio of Cumae and Suessula presumably occurred at or shortly after that of the Campani; and

  5. that of Acerrae took place in 332 BC.

Incorporation of Fundi and Formiae

According to Livy (as noted above) Fundi and Formiae were incorporated sine suffragio in 338 BC.  As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998: at pp. 568-9) noted, this was the first time that either of them had appeared in our surviving sources.  It is particularly important to bear in mind that, although Livy implies that their incorporation was part of the settlement that followed the Latin War, Livy had not named them among the participants in it.  Oakley argued (at p. 568) that: 

  1. “... such incorporations [as these] were generally aggressive acts on Rome’s part, but here we are told [see ‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 10] that it was a reward for allowing Roman armies to pass through their territory .”

Livy had also claimed (above) that, when negotiating with Plautius in 330 BC, the people of Fundi had insisted that they had not joined the revolt of Privernum, insisting (inter alia) that they remembered with gratitude the recent award of Roman citizenship (‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 11).  In his preferred version of these events, Livy had the Romans accept that Vitruvius Vaccus of Fundi, the leader of the revolt at Privernum, had been a renegade who had acted outside the control of the authorities of his native city.

However, Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 604) pointed out that, in Quadrigarius’ alternate version of these events, which Livy cited at ‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 14:

  1. “... Quadrigarius clearly believed that Fundi [had been] engaged in hostilities with Rome [in 330 BC].  It is possible that neither of the variants that Livy offered] was authentic, but the version of Quadrigarius is much more credible than Livy’s [preferred version], whose empty moralising it avoids.”

It is therefore at least possible that both Fundi and Formiae revolted alongside Privernum in 330 BC.  Following this line of thought, Oakley argued (at p. 605) that:

  1. “... it is [therefore] tempting to place the incorporation of both [Fundi and Formiae], together with that of Privernum, in [329 BC].”

As it happens, support for this hypothesis can be found in the chronology presented by Velleius Patroculus (‘Roman History’, 1: 14: 3-4):

  1. In the consulship of Spurius Postumius Albinus and Titus Veturius Calvinus:

  2. “... the citizenship without the right of voting was given to the Campani ... ; and

  3. a colony was established at Cales”

  4. After an interval of three years:

  5. “... the people of Fundi and of Formiae were admitted to the citizenship... ; 

  6. In the following year:

  7. “ ... the citizenship was granted to the inhabitants of Acerrae by the censors Spurius Postumius Albinus and Quintus Publilius Philo;

  8. Three years later:

  9. “... a colony was established at Tarracina”.

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 539) acknowledged that the chronology here is internally inconsistent.  In particular, since:

  1. the consulship of Spurius Postumius Albinus and Titus Veturius Calvinus was in 334/3 BC; and

  2. the censorship of Spurius Postumius Albinus and Quintus Publilius Philo was in 332 BC;

the incorporation of Fundi and of Formiae cannot have been both three years after the first event and one year before the second.  However, as discussed above, he suggested that the correct date was 329 BC.

Conclusions: Incorporation of Fundi and Formiae

If Oakley’s hypothesis is accepted, then Velleius’ chronology makes sense:

  1. In 334 BC:

  2. ‘the Campani’ (presumably the people of Capua and its satellites (Atella, Casilinum and Calatia), Cumae and Suessula) were incorporated; and

  3. a colony was founded  at Cales (as agreed by Livy).

  4. In 332 BC, Acerrae was incorporated (as agreed by Livy).

  5. Three years later (i.e. in 329 BC):

  6. Fundi and Formiae were incorporated (as suggested by Oakley); and

  7. a colony was founded at Tarracina (as agreed by Livy).

Land Confiscation at Privernum

Livy’s account of the conquest of Privernum can be summarised as follows:

  1. In 341 BC, after a brief revolt, Privernum surrendered to Rome.  Although it retained its independence at this point, it suffered the confiscation of two thirds of its territory (‘History of Rome’, 8: 1: 3).

  2. In 340 BC, this confiscated land was distributed in small allotments among the Roman plebs (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 15).

  3. In 330 BC, Privernum revolted again.

  4. Following its surrender in 329 BC:

  5. “The Senate ... decreed that all those who had continued to act as a senator of Privernum during the revolt should henceforth reside on the farther side of the Tiber, under the same restrictions as [the exiled senators] of Velitrae [in 338 BC - see above]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 20: 9-10)

  6. The consul Caius Plautius Decianus argued in the Senate against any further punishment of the people of Privernum, who:

  7. “... are neighbours to the Samnites, whose peaceful relations with ourselves are at this time most precarious:  [we should therefore ensure] that as little bad feeling as possible is created between them and us”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 20: 12).

  8. This argument prevailed, and it was agreed that:

  9. “... a bill to award civitas to the people of Privernum should be brought before the people”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 21: 10).  

  10. Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 620) argued that:

  11. “... this grant of citizenship [to the people of Privernum] must have been sine suffragio ..."

  12. Once again, Livy presents this incorporation, somewhat improbably, as an act of magnanimity that would be well-received by the recipients.

  13. Also in 329 BC, the colonia maritima of Tarracina was founded on land that had almost certainly been confiscated from Privernum.

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 393) argued that:

  1. “It is a major difficulty that  ... [the capture of Privernum is recorded in 341 BC and also] in 329 BC, bot years in which [Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus Privernas] was consul with a C. Plautius [Caius Plautius Decianus in 329 BC].  Some scholars have therefore argued that the two reported captures are doublets of the same event.”

He pointed out (at pp. 393-4) that there is no reason why Rome should not have fought with Privernum in 341 BC and 329 BC, although:

  1. “... perhaps [Livy’s] notice of the confiscation of two thirds of [Privernate territory] should be transferred [from 341] to 329 BC.”

He concluded (at p. 394, note 1) that:

  1. “... the matter cannot be decided beyond all doubt.”

It seems to me that, even if the major confiscation had occurred in 341 BC, the lands of the exiled senators would surely have fallen into Roman hands in 329 BC (as had been the case at Velitrae).

Conclusions: Incorporation of Privernum

To summarise:

  1. In 341 BC, it is possible (as Livy claimed) that two thirds of the territory of Privernum was confiscated, and that the land was assigned in small lots for viritane settlement in the following year.

  2. In 330 BC, Privernum and Fundi revolted.

  3. In 329 BC, after Privernum and Fundi surrendered:

  4. Privernum was incorporated sine suffragio

  5. some land was probably confiscated at Privernum:

  6. -if not the two thirds of its territory that Livy recorded as confiscated in 341 BC; then

  7. -possibly further land confiscated from the exiled senators; and

  8. a citizen colony was founded at Tarracina on land that had been confiscated from Privernum in 341 or 329 BC. 

Conclusions: Political Settlements (338 - 328 BC)

If we combine the three chronologies suggested above, the revised chronology would be:

  1. In 341 BC, it is possible (as Livy claimed) that two thirds of the territory of Privernum was confiscated.

  2. In 340 BC, Rome confiscated the ager Falernus, which had formally belonged to the Campani.  However, some 1,600 Campanian knight who had remained loyal to Rome were rewarded: they received citizenship (probably optimo iure) and were exempted from the confiscation of any land that they owned in the ager Falernus.

  3. In 334/3 BC:

  4. a Latin colony was founded at Cales; and

  5. Capua and its satellites (Atella, Casilinum and Calatia), Cumae and Suessula were incorporated sine suffragio.

  6. In 332 BC:

  7. Quintus Publilius Philo and Spurius Postumius Albinus performed the census; and

  8. Acerrae was incorporated sine suffragio.

  9. In 329 BC:

  10. Privernum, Fundi and Formiae were incorporated sine suffragio

  11. some land was probably confiscated at Privernum:

  12. -if not the two thirds of its territory that Livy recorded as confiscated in 341 BC; then

  13. -possibly further land confiscated from the exiled senators; and

  14. a citizen colony was founded at Tarracina on land that had been confiscated from Privernum in 341 or 329 BC.

Read more:

D. Gargola, “The Shape of the Roman Order: the Republic and its Spaces”, (2017) Chapel Hill, North Carolina

D. Boin, “Ostia in Late Antiquity”, (2013) Cambridge

M. Chiabà, “Roma e le Priscae Latinae Coloniae: Ricerche sulla Colonizzazione del

Lazio dalla Costituzione della Repubblica alla Guerra Latina”, (2011) Trieste

M. Fronda, “Between Rome and Carthage”, (2010) Cambridge

S. Roselaar, “Public Land in the Roman Republic: A Social and Economic History of Ager Publicus in Italy, 396 - 89 BC”, (2010) Oxford

H. Solin, “Problemi delle tribù nel Lazio meridionale”, in

  1. M. Silvestrini (Ed.), “Le Tribù Romane: Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’Epigraphie du Monde Romaine (Bari, 8-10 Ottobre 2009)”, (2010) Bari, at pp. 71-9 

S. Oakley, “A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume III: Books IX”, (2005) Oxford

A. Cooley, “Politics and Religion in the Ager Laurens”, in:

  1. A. Cooley (Ed.), “The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement 73 (2000) 173-191, at pp. 173-4

S. Oakley, “A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume II: Books VII and VIII”, (1998) Oxford

S. Oakley, “A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume I: Book VI”, 1997 (Oxford)

T. Cornell, “The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (ca. 1000-264 BC)”, (1995) London and New York

G. Mason, “The Agrarian Role of Coloniae Maritimae: 338-241 BC”, Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 41:1 (1992)  75-87

W. Harris, “Rome in Etruria and Umbria”, (1971) Oxford

E. Salmon, “Roman Colonisation under the Republic”, (1970) New York

L. Ross Taylor, “The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: The 35 Urban and Rural Tribes”, (1960) Rome

K. J. Beloch, “Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Punischen Kriege”, (1926) Berlin and Leipzig

Return to the History Index


Political Settlement II: (340 - 328 BC)

Home   Cities    History    Art    Hagiography    Contact